Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1980/01/23 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, January 23, 1980 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of January 9, 1980 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Consideration of vacation of Industrial Boulevard between "K" and "L" Streets 2. Consideration of final EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of proposed Growth Management Policies 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-80-11 to operate family amusement center in C-N zone at 937 Otay Lakes Road, Donald Haskell and Partner 5. Letter regarding expansion of mini-shops at ARCO Stations ORAL COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS To: City Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Subject: Staff report on agenda items for Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 1980 1. Consideration of vacation of Industrial Boulevard between "K" and "L" Streets A. BACKGROUND 1. In June, 1976 the owners of the property to the west of Industrial Boulevard, north of "L" Street, applied to have this portion of Industrial Boulevard vacated. 2. At the request of the Planning Commission, a lengthy investigation was done to determine who would gain ownership upon vacation. It was determined it would be decided judicially. The Planning Commission then recommended approval of the vacation. 3. The resolution of intent to vacate (No. 8464) was passed by Council on January 4, 1977. The public hearing was held on January 25, 1977, at which time staff recommended against the vacation due to the possible need for the right-of-way by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) for use in conjunction with its proposed light rail transit system. The matter was then filed until MTDB could be contacted and a response received. 4. On February 21, 1979 the Mayor's office received a letter from MTDB stating it had no interest in the subject portion of Industrial Boulevard. In March, 1979 Mr. Gerald Baker, the original petitioner, was contacted by the Engineering Department. He was notified of the response of MTDB and replied he would contact his attorney, Glen Birch, who was to handle the matter. After six months with no response, Mr. Birch was contacted. He expressed an interest in continuing the vacation proceedings. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in Section C of this report, adopt a motion recommending that City Council approve the vacation of the portion of Industrial Boulevard between "K" and "L" Street, subject to the following condition: The owner shall comply with Section 19.44.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to fencing requirements. C. FINDINGS 1. According to the previous report to the Planning Department from John Lippitt, dated October 27, 1976, the following determinations were made: a. The title or itnerest in said property (to the extent determined) is at present vested in the City of Chula Vista, if fee title was conveyed by those deeds recorded in Book 1073, page 468 of deeds and Book 232, page 139 of deeds. b. If only an easement was conveyed by these deeds, then the title or City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 23, 1980 page 2 interest is vested in Lumber Purveyors, Inc. and Baker Enter- prises, a partnership for the westerly half, and in San Diego Lands, Inc., a dissolved corporation for the easterly half. c. It would have to be judicially determined whether an easement or fee title was conveyed by the referenced deeds. d. The City Engineering staff has found that there is no present need for Industrial Boulevard between "L" and "K" Street. Adequate circulation is provided by other local streets and Interstate 5 freeway. Although it is appropriate to vacate this portion of Industrial Boulevard, the Engineering staff recommends that the applicant, Mr. Gerald M. Baker of Baker Industries, take legal action to assure that the easterly half of Industrial 8oulevard will revert to him when Industrial Boulevard is vacated. If Industrial Boulevard is vacated without Baker Industries taking the necessary legal action, it could mean that the easterly half of Industrial Boulevard could revert to either the City of Chula Vista or San Diego Lands, Inc. This could result in a 40 foot wide strip of land between the railroad right of way and Baker Industries' property. 2. Conditions remain unchanged since the original application was made. Industrial Boulevard between "K" and "L" Streets is still not needed by the City for street purposes. 3. The subject street right-of-way is still being used for lumber storage and the owner has not complied with the City's request of February l, 1977; i.e., (1) Apply for an encroachment permit, and (2) screen lumber storage in accordance with City ordinances. -- "K" 'STREET I//CIIVITY ~AP x ~ · ' AREA TO BE VACATED- ~ ~ ~ ' ' "L" STREET DRAVlN DY I T I T L E L. M. ~.~ STREET V~C~TION - .......... ' N "K" TO "L" ", I DUSTRIAL BLVD, City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 23, 1980 Page 3 2. Consideration of final EIR-80-1 on Growth Management Policies A. BACKGROUND The public hearing on this document was closed at the January 9, 1980 Planning Commission meeting and consideration of the final EIR was scheduled for the January 23 meeting. During the interim, various refinements to the policies have been under consideration. It is desirable that the Commission receive the final EIR, the CEQA findings, and the proposed policies as a total package for full evaulation. B. RECOMMENDATION Continue consideration of final EIR-80-1 until the February 13, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Consideration of proposed Growth Management Policies RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing for consideration of the proposed Growth Management Policies to the meeting of February 13, 1980. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 23, 1980 Page 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit PCC-80-11 to operate family amusemen~ center in C-N zone at 937 Ota~ Lakes Road, Donald Haskell and Partner A. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting permission to locate and operate an amusement center at 937 Otay Lakes Road within an existing shopping center in the C-N zone. 2. An Initial Study, IS-80-37, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Committee on January 9, 1980. The Committee concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declara- tion. B. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration on IS-80-37 and find that this project will have no significant environmental impact. 2. Based on the findings as stated in Section E of this report, adopt a motion to deny the request. C. DISCUSSION 1. Proposed use. The applicant proposes to occupy 2600 sq. ft. of vacant floor space located within the Southwestern College neighborhood shopping center for the purpose of operating a family amusement center consisting of pinball machines, video games and other similar coin operated games. The proposed hours of operation are between lO:O0 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and between lO:O0 a.m. and ll:O0 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. The applicant has indicated that the hours will be adjusted to the hours when the primary and secondary schools are not in session. 2. C-N Zone. As the Planning Commission is aware, the C-N zone is one of the most restric- tive commercial zones in the city. Section 19.34.010 sets forth the purpose of the C-N zone as ". · · to provide a shopping center for convenience shopping where analysis of residential population demonstrates that such facilities are necessary and desirable." A recreational use such as the one proposed is some- what foreign to the intent of the zone. In this same location, very limited use of game machines was allowed in connection with a restaurant which is no longer in business. In the case of the applications which have been filed in the neighborhood center at Melrose and Orange, one was denied and one was approved. The one which was approved was only 742 sq. ft. and was in operation for less than a year, and then was asked by the landlord to leave. Staff understands that other tenants in the center found the clientele increasingly bothersome and that the situation deteriorated to the point where the landlord had to take action. City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 23, 1980 Page 5 3. Neighborhood Recreation. The concept of a family recreation center to which young people could walk for wholesome entertainment is very appealing. However, such a large facility in close proximity to a liquor store, near a 7-Eleven store which is a gathering place, and near Junior High and Senior High Schools and a community college, has the potential for creating neighborhood disturbances. D. CONCLUSION Staff has concluded that the unfavorable experience with family amusement centers in C-N zones, the proximity of the proposed location to a liquor store and to public schools, and the proposed size of the use all combine to justify a recommendation of denial of the application. E. FINDINGS 1. That th~ proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The use is proposed to be located within a shopping center intended to provide goods and services to the immediate neighborhood. While it undoubtedly would be patronized by residents of the adjacent residential areas, its size would tend also to attract customers from outside the area and young adults from the nearby schools. The intensity of activity likely to be associated with the use would not contribute to the general well being of the shopping center or the neighborhood. 2. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. In the C-N zone previous operations of this type at a much smaller scale have proved to be detrimental to the general welfare of adjoining businesses. The central location.of this business within the center would be likely to prove disruptive to adjoining businesses. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the code for such use. The proposed use would be located within a commercial structure which complies with the regulations of the Code. 4. That the granting of th~s conditional use will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of~ny gove~nmental agency. The General Plan is not affected by the granting of conditional uses. NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Family Amusement Center Project Location: 937 Otay Lakes Rd. Project Proponent: American Game Exchange 2543 University Ave. San Diego, CA 92103 CASE NO. IS-80-37 DATE: January 9, 1980 A. Project ~etting The project is proposed for an existing neighborhood shopping center that is void of any significant environmental resources or hazards. There are no geological, acoustical, soils or air quality hazards of any significance on or near the project site. There are no significant resources such as mineral deposits, archaeological sites, unique biological stands or aesthetic features on or near the project site. B. Project D_escription The project involves the installation of video and mechanical games in an existing 2600 sq. ft. lease space within a neighborhood shopping center. The facility will utilize 13 parking spaces, employ 2 people at one time and have an estimated 18-30 customers per day. The hours of operation will be from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Friday and' Saturday. C. Compatibility with zoning and plans The proposed amusement center is in conformance with the General Plan and associated elements, however, a Conditional Use Permit will be required to assure compatibility with ~oning requirements and adjacent land uses. D. Findings of insignificant impact 1. The project will not adversely effect, any natural or man made environmental features present in the project setting, nor will the project generate any pollutants that will have a potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment or curtail the range of the environment which supports the biosystem. 2. The project is in conformance with the long range goals of the City of Chula Vista and will not therefore attain short term to the disadvantage of long range goals. 3. The project will not provide any system that could secondary development that would cumulate to a level of beinq substantial and adverse nor do any of the insiqn~ficant impac_~ interact to a significant level. 4. The project will not result in the generation of any air po!lution~ light, aesthetic blight nor any other hazard to the welfare nor health of any human being. E. Consultation City of Chula Vista D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning Bill Ullrich, Assoc. Engo Gene Grady, Ted Monsell, Fire Marshal Merritt Hodson, Env. Control Commissioner Documents IS-75-70 Vaine Game Center PCC-80-11 D. Haskell & partner Family Amusement Center The Initial Study Application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula Vista Planning Dept., 276 4th Ave., Chula Vista, CA. ~i~V~f/WCOORDINATOR EN 3 (rev. 5/77) DARTMOUTH ' 'H' STREET !:.,~ .... ,~,.,/,~', '-., . TIFFANY ~' ~ PARK ELMHURST GAS GOTH A M HARVARD THACA VACANT 20(~' 400' NORTH ~; PARKING ' I - ~ I~ / NO SCALE. NORTH City Planning Commission Agenda Items for Meeting of January 23, 1980 Page 6 5. Letter regarding expansion of mini-shops at ARCO Stations A. BACKGROUND At the January 9, 1980 Planning Commission meeting the Commission asked that this item be put on the agenda for the purpose of determining whether to consider it at a regular business meeting or at a study session. B. DISCUSSION Staff has no preference as to the type of meeting at which the item is to be discussed. It could be considered at the February 13 business meeting or the February 20 study session. At the January 23rd meeting, staff will inform the Commission as to the length of the agendas for the February 13 and February 20 meetings.